DoFo wants to wasted $75 million to kill bike lanes that are used massively.
He works for donors, not Ontario
He works for donors, not Ontario
Ford passed the legislation for ripping up the bike lanes TODAY!!
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Sort of puts the lies to Skoobie and the Gang's thesis of:
Government needs businessmen running the show.
lefties are equating removing bike lanes from Bloor St
to Ford wants to kill babies
Last edited:
What consultation did he do?
lefties are equating removing bike lanes from Bloor St
to Ford wants to kill babies
Yes. We're now onto the "Tear up the bike lanes and thousands of innocent biking children will die!" phase of the horseshit.
lefties are equating removing bike lanes from Bloor St
to Ford wants to kill babies
Really?Yes. We're now onto the "Tear up the bike lanes and thousands of innocent biking children will die!" phase of the horseshit.
Doug and yourself, know with absolute certainty that people will die as a direct cause of his actions.
Shield the gov't aka himself from lawsuits confirms this.
people die every day so that most of us could get to work. That's why speed limit in most places is not 10km/hr. It's a sacrifice that humans seem to be willing to make everywhere.
What in the world are you talking about?
Motorized vehicles 30 confirmed kills, lives extinguished
Cyclists, pedestrians 0 confirmed kills, lives extinguished
Using a sword to remove bike lanes, knowing with absolute certainty that deaths will occur because of their removal, while subsequently employing a shield to protect yourself from such certain consequences of your actions, not only is the height of craven disregard for the live and safety of the citizens you are supposed to protect and legally cannot be allowed to stand.
That is the most well informed, well thought out and most beautifully exquisite and eloquent statement the likes of which the world has never seen before nor will ever after be re-seen again.
Epic, monumental!
Yes, as opposed to the cycling wingnuts who live in other parts of the city and never use that stretch of Bloor. Unless there's a rally to keep the bike lanes, the ones they never use. And before all the usual suspects get their panties in a knot, I'm an avid cyclist, but not one who thinks every major thoroughfare should have a lanes reduced for bike lanes.
I'd like to know over the last few years how many heart attack patients have died because the ambulance couldnt get to them in time
She is a hire of the right-wing, center-right mayor, John Tory, and his majority right-wing, center-right council of Toronto.Of course, Olivia Chow and the leftist Toronto city council, support this chick imported from Seattle......LMAO
Barbara Gray (urban planner) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
All of these bike lanes, not sure about Etobicoke, were the product of the above right-wing, center-right mayor and council majority.
Mitch get your shit straight, please.
Last edited:
The amendment is - I suspect - designed to shield the government from nuisance lawsuits as any cyclist involved in any way in a collision would try and involve the provincial government.
But it's silly. The government is actually immune from liability for policy decisions made by the legislature when enacting legislation.
I'm skeptical that injuries to cyclists are going to increase noticeably. In my several decades living in downtown TO, I've seen one accident involving a cyclist and a car.
it doesn't matter who build the bike lanes
what matters is that they are going to be removed
Who is this guy? I want to give him a hug. Like I've said many times before, I'm an avid (+10 C.) cyclist who gets around the city just fine, by taking current bike lanes on major roads or one of the infinite number of side streets. If I do have to ride on a major street that doesn't have a bike lane, I make sure I'm aware of my surroundings, ride close to the curb and don't do stupid shit that puts my life in jeopardy.
Cycling zealots will always bring up the fact that 6 cyclists died last year. My question is, who was at fault in those deaths and what were the circumstances surrounding them? Because simply stating a number, doesn't help anyone.
A friend of a friend's daughter was left in a coma this summer, in a cycling collision. Without knowing the facts, typically one side (the cyclists) will use that as just reason for adding additional bike lanes and preventing the removal of others. Most will also assume she was hit by a car. I mean, cyclists are never at fault in the eyes of the cycling community (Cycle Toronto) right?
Well, in this case, she was riding in a bike lane when a food delivery courier, passing her on an e-bike, clipped her handlebar, causing her to fall and strike her head on the asphalt. She was not wearing a helmet. I haven't heard how she is or even if she's still alive, but at the time, she had been in a coma for weeks and the prognosis wasn't good. Of course, the food courier couldn't be identified, and never stopped.
Last edited:
That's exactly what the amendment is for. Motorists are required to have insurance, you know, in case they're involved in a collision with a cyclist.
While I'm pretty sure you're right, that the government is immune from liability for policy decisions (can you imagine if they weren't) this is just another level of protection and I see nothing wrong with it. Considering the lengths the cycling community will go to, headed by The Biking Lawyer LLP, the government was wise to do this.
It's the new wave of crap. I got involved in a thread on X about a fatality on the Bayview extension. Initially, the biketards claimed that it was a cyclist and that he would have been "saved" by bike lanes. Then it turned out that he was a pedestrian. Not sure who was at fault there, but the vic certainly wouldn't have been saved by bike lanes.
I suggested that and mentioned that - IIRC - the Bayview Extension is quite aggressively bike-laned already. Got hit with a ranting mass of biketards demanding that the speed limits everywhere be drastically reduced to "save pedestrians and cyclists from motorists".
The morally superior ranting against motorists is really over the top! The Biking Lawyer is a prime asshole.
Think there’s a ‘war on the car’? Here’s the truth behind the rhetoric in Toronto
Nov. 23, 2024
By Shawn Micallef Contributing Columnist
Shawn Micallef is a Toronto-based writer and a freelance contributing columnist for the Star.
For decades, some have bleated on and on about a “war on the car.”
Any tiny improvement in road safety for pedestrians, cyclists or even drivers themselves has been met with complaints. Even the act of asking (begging, really) for things that can save life or limb is greeted with alarm from some as if it were part of this “war.”
So what if we declare an actual “war,” then?
Clearly one side of this debate is itching to do so by using, even metaphorically, the word “war” to describe the excruciatingly slow and incremental addition of safe infrastructure in Toronto. The Ford government’s Bill 212 to remove some of those relatively modest improvements is — to lean into the ridiculous rhetoric — an act of war. So is the surprise amendment banning lawsuits against the province if cyclists are killed or injured where lanes are removed. That’s a clear indication they know what they’re doing could grievously harm people.
Consider how the safe infrastructure fight is waged instead. Bike lanes on Bloor took decades of advocacy, but because a small group of business people with Progressive Conservative connections called “Balance on Bloor” have the premier’s ear, as reported by The Trillium, they might be removed quickly. That such a move is politically popular with the majority of Ontarians, even if some live outside of or far from Toronto, gives Ford the cover he needs to make it.
The handful of high-profile lanes notwithstanding, most streets in Toronto have zero bike infrastructure. The ironic shamelessness of including “balance” in the name of the advocacy group demonstrates a swaggering disrespect to Ontarians and disregard of good faith.
Good faith is important here. Bike lane implementation required studies, engineering reports and often extensive public consultation. Meanwhile, opponents of safer streets have been treated with kid gloves. Toronto police admitted to giving up on traffic enforcement, gaslighting residents by saying they were doing so. A city walk today is rife with red-light running, rolling stops and other aggressive behaviour.
Businesses leery or even against lanes were also treated the same, presented with studies showing businesses can thrive with lanes and cyclists are good customers. Business groups like Bloor Annex BIA have even spoken up and made that case themselves.
The response to that good faith has been “Balance on Bloor” and Bill 212.
As reported by the Star, the Ford government used outdated cycling ridership figures while new, higher, numbers have not been released publicly. Trillium reported that the draft of a briefing document prepared for Ford’s cabinet contained research that demonstrated removing bike lanes could actually worsen congestion, but it hasn’t been discussed publicly either. Why not be transparent? Why the bad faith?
All this obfuscation and scapegoating hides the truth from drivers: the main enemy in any perceived war is other drivers. Only fewer cars on the road will solve the issue of congestion.
In this rhetorical war, cyclists are often characterized as soft, weak or even “woke,” but there is nothing tougher than a cyclist in Toronto. They ride through heat, cold, rain and, yes, even the handful of days Toronto gets snow. Adults and children ride on fraught streets bereft of safe infrastructure. Rarely can a route from A to B be completed entirely using safe infrastructure, though until Bill 212 we were heading in the right direction.
Toronto cyclists and pedestrians contend with some drivers who use their vehicles as weapons. Drivers who creep toward them when using a crosswalk, as if trying to get them out of the way faster. When almost nailed by a driver’s actions, pedestrians and cyclists frequently get a little happy wave of “sorry!” like it’s no big deal. That’s a microcosm of the problem in this debate: it’s life or death, but one side doesn’t see that.
But before heading into battle, it’s worth asking if anyone would actually win such a war. If the cyclists stop shopping at the businesses fighting safety measures such as protected bike lanes, would that satisfy anyone? If bike lanes disappear, and every cyclist takes up an entire lane of traffic instead (calling it the “Doug Ford Express”) who would come out ahead? It may be legally allowed under the Highway Traffic Act, and likely to happen when the separated lanes disappear, but it would also be extremely risky — to the person on two wheels and the one driving the car.
If declaring a “war on the car” seems extreme, it’s simply a reflection of the rules of engagement and rhetoric established by Ford and those opposed to safer streets. If they accuse cyclists and pedestrians of waging war, a war they should get.
Last edited:
